Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 846
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
G.P. Venkatesa Mudaliar
Versus
The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai
Writ Petition Nos.32607 of 2007,33215, 37153, 37703 of 2007, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2050 of 2008, 37019 of 2007, 1878, 2523 of 2008, 35706 to 35710 of 2007, 3146, 3176, 4494, 3910, 2951, 3175, 4066, 3246, 3846 and 3447 of 2008
Decied on : 07-03-2008
For the Petitioner:N.S.M. Md. Jafarullah, A. Thiyagarajan, N. Nithianandam, M. Rajasekhar, S. Sundaresan, Siva Suyambu, Srinath Sridevan, B. Dayaalan, M. MD. Ibrahim Ali, K. Govi Ganesan, R. Hemalatha, M. AbdulNazeer, P.S. Sivasubramaniam, T.N. Rajagopalan, M.S. Ramesh, R. Singaravelan, P.S.Sivasubramaniam, A. Venkatesan. Advocates. For the Respondent:V. Barathidasan, Standing Counsel for Chennai Corporation, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of considering objections and affording an opportunity of personal hearing before demanding property tax, and held that the impugned notice proposing to revise tax retrospectively without considering the objections cannot be sustained.
Headnote:
Property Tax - Revision of Tax - The court found that the respondent issued a notice proposing to revise the fair rent and collect a half yearly tax retrospectively without considering the objections filed by the petitioners. The court held that the impugned notice cannot be sustained and quashed it, remitting the matters back to the respondent for appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the Property Tax Notice for Current Demand and Arrear Demand, as the respondent issued a notice proposing to revise the fair rent and collect a half yearly tax retrospectively without considering the objections filed by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notices were sent to the petitioners proposing to revise tax and that the petitioners have sent objections. The demand of current tax and arrears of tax were made even before considering the objections and no opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioners. The court quashed the impugned notice and remitted the matters back to the respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issues were the retrospective enhancement of property tax, unilateral assessment by the respondent, and the lack of opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's actions were not in confirmity with the provisions of the law, as the demand for current tax and arrears of tax were made before considering the objections and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The Writ petitions were allowed, and the matters were remitted back to the respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with the law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the court's order after considering the objections and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. The respondents were restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners to collect the tax amount pursuant to the demand notice.
All the above petitions are filed challenging the Property Tax Notice for Current Demand and Arrear Demand.
2. All the petitioners in the above writ petitions are owners of the land mentioned in the writ petitions. For the purpose of calculation of property tax, the annual rental value was fixed and a half yearly tax was also being collected from the petitioners. However, the respondent issued a notice proposing to revise the fair rent and consequently proposing to collect a half yearly tax and such a proposal to revise the tax was to take effect retrospectively. Notices were served on the petitioners. The petitioners sent a detailed reply by way of objection to the respondent and the same are still pending. The petitioners have not received any reply from the respondent so far. However, the respondent in his property tax notice claimed current demand and arrear demand. Aggrieved against such impugned notice, the petitioners approached this Court by way of writ petitions.
3. Heard Mr. N.S.M.Md.Jafarullah, Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, Mr.N.Nithianandam,Mr.M.Rajasekhar, Mr.S.Sundaresan, Mr.Siva Suyambu, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Mr.B.Dayaalan, Mr.M.MD.Ibrahim Ali, Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Ms.R.Hemalatha,Mr.M.AbdulNazeer, Mr.P.S.Sivasubramaniam, Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, Mr.M.S.Ramesh, Mr.R.Singaravelan, Mr.P.S.Sivasubramaniam, Mr.A.Venkatesan learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Barathidasan, learned Standing counsel for the Chennai Corporation.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the main grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of submission of the objections to the impugned notice, the respondent issued a notice for payment of property tax for current demand and arrears without considering the same. Moreover, no opportunity of personal hearing is given to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the respondent has no power of retrospective enhancement of property tax under the Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the impugned notice cannot be allowed to proceed as the said notice is issued without making proper assessment and calculation and they are not in confirmity with the provisions of law. They also contended that assessment is made unilaterally by the respondent.
6. Mr. V. Barathidasan, learned Standing Counsel for the Chennai Corporation contended that the assessment made is in confirmity with Section 137(B) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 and hence in the case of property tax has not been duly assessed in any half year or year consequent on the building or land concerned having escaped proper determination of its annual value, the Commissioner may, at any time, from the date on which such person should have been assessed, serve on such person a notice assessing him to the tax or fee due and demanding payment thereof within fifteen days from the date of such service. Therefore, there is no infirmity with the impugned proceedings in all these cases. The first respondent has followed the procedure and there is no contravention of any provision of law. It is also open to the respondent to consider the objection including the retrospective effect.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
8. It is seen that the petitioners are the owners of the property. They have been served with notice and given fifteen days time to file objection from the service of the notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder. The petitioners have filed their objections. Pending consideration of those objections, the respondent issued consequent notice demanding the arrears of property tax without giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and also giving retrospective effect. Hence, the petitioners moved this Court challenging the notice. It is not in dispute that the first respondent valued the properties of the petitioners and issued notice. Even before taking into con
